Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So... someone should be reading your mind to prevent you from doing something that is illegal before you do it?

Almost all legal restrictions act in retrospect.

In pretty well all common law jurisdictions you are free to speak or not to speak but lying to officialdom in the performance of their duties is perjury which falls under the criminal code.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A database[1], of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots, in the United States, since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist, that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator.
Over the same time period, American white supremacists, and other rightwing extremists, have carried out attacks, that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database.
The database was assembled by researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and outlines the threat from right-wing, left-wing, white supremacist, anti-government extremists, and religious networks.

0 - Victims killed in anti-fascist attacks since 1994
21 - Victims killed in left-wing violence since 2010
95 - Victims killed in jihadist attacks since 2010
117 - Victims killed in right-wing violence since 2010
329 - Victims killed in right-wing violence since 1994

The CSIS brief concludes:
“... All parts of U.S. society have an important role to play in countering terrorism. Politicians need to encourage greater civility and refrain from incendiary language. Social media companies need to continue sustained efforts to fight hatred and terrorism on their platforms. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other companies are already doing this. But the struggle will only get more difficult as the United States approaches the November 2020 presidential election—and even in its aftermath. Finally, the U.S. population needs to be more alert to disinformation, double-check their sources of information, and curb incendiary language.
Terrorism feeds off lies, conspiracies, disinformation, and hatred. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi urged individuals to practice what he called “satyagraha,” or truth force. “Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever; and it always insists upon truth,” he explained. [53] That advice is just as important as it has ever been in the United States.”

[1] “The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States” ~ by Seth G. Jones, Catrina Doxsee, & Nicholas Harrington
“... This analysis makes several arguments. First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020 ...
... Between 1994 and 2020, there were 893 terrorist attacks and plots in the United States. Overall, right-wing terrorists perpetrated the majority—57 percent—of all attacks and plots during this period, compared to 25 percent committed by left-wing terrorists, 15 percent by religious terrorists, 3 percent by ethnonationalists, and 0.7 percent by terrorists with other motives ...”
[1] ➥ https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...rrorism_v6.pdf

The problem with these sorts of survey is that if you take the entire political spectrum with left wing to the left of centre and right wing to the right of centre, everyone to the right of the extreme of LHS is right wing and everyone to the left of the extreme right of the spectrum is left wing. But they will all claim to be at the centre. In all cases whether you brand them left or right tends to depend upon where you locate the centre.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

In pretty well all common law jurisdictions you are free to speak or not to speak but lying to officialdom in the performance of their duties is perjury which falls under the criminal code.

Right... the law is enforced after the violation -- just like virtually all legal restrictions. So you're basically stating you are free to violate the law. I guess that's true of everything from perjury to murder.

The fact is, freedom of speech, or indeed all so-called "rights", come with limitations. And this is really the heart of the discussion over limiting social media platforms. Should it be done proactively, or post-infraction, or not done at all (as it is now).

In this case, should these platforms be more tightly regulated like a utility, or should they be treated like broadcasters or publishers, making them responsible for the content they carry? Currently, they are treated like a common carrier, making them free from responsibility. They can pursue their own interests in the ways that seem best to them.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Right... the law is enforced after the violation -- just like virtually all legal restrictions. So you're basically stating you are free to violate the law. I guess that's true of everything from perjury to murder.

The fact is, freedom of speech, or indeed all so-called "rights", come with limitations. And this is really the heart of the discussion over limiting social media platforms. Should it be done proactively, or post-infraction, or not done at all (as it is now).

In this case, should these platforms be more tightly regulated like a utility, or should they be treated like broadcasters or publishers, making them responsible for the content they carry? Currently, they are treated like a common carrier, making them free from responsibility. They can pursue their own interests in the ways that seem best to them.

Thar's generally the way the law works. If thinking "I'd like to kill that damned parking inspector who just put the damned ticket under my wiper" we'd all end up in jail. Fortunately it does not work that way and you have not infringed the law until you voice or act on the threat

The major problem with the internet is the anonymity it provides to the nasty. If it was not there to hide behind there'd be a lot less nastiness about.

I tend to like the common carrier concept with some sort of solution to the anonymity problem.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

...The major problem with the internet is the anonymity it provides to the nasty. If it was not there to hide behind there'd be a lot less nastiness about.

I tend to like the common carrier concept with some sort of solution to the anonymity problem.

Funny, but I've made the same suggestion for CF multiple times. It's actually been well studied, and it's clear that anonymity leads to behaviours that are less constrained and, as you say, nasty. If people here had to stand behind what they write, I suspect words would be chosen with greater care.

(And yes... I know... it's easy to fake identities. There are answers, but I don't mean to sidetrack this discussion).

Personally, I think any legislated change should be aimed at shifting the economic incentives for these companies. They ramp up the vitriol because that's what drives views and clicks. They feed people self-affirming "news" because that keeps people engaged. The truthfulness of the content is irrelevant. As long as it keeps peoples' attention, that's all that matters.

So how do we shift the economics to reward truth? Outside penalizing falsehoods what can one do to change the economics of social media platforms?

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The major problem with the internet is the anonymity it provides to the nasty. If it was not there to hide behind there'd be a lot less nastiness about.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's actually been well studied, and it's clear that anonymity leads to behaviours that are less constrained and, as you say, nasty. If people here had to stand behind what they write, I suspect words would be chosen with greater care.?

This thread seems to be circling in on some real agreement on the issues and possible solutions. I love it when that happens!

Putting aside fears of Orwellian state abuse, I'm coming to the conclusion that we're actually approaching the end of internet anonymity anyway.

Personally, I try (and maybe do not always succeed) to maintain a certain level of decency and respect posting here. Even without a direct connection to my IRL identity, I value any reputation I may build here, and think twice before saying anything I know may damage it.

I also know that anonymity is fragile and easily lost. If I were to spout off some dangerous manifesto here, I'm sure someone would make the effort to track me down. Off the top of my head I can think of several ways to connect my posts here to my identity.

Finally, events of January 6th have shown that many people don't really care much about their anonymity anyway. Without going beyond the superficial headlines, it appears to me that many of those arrested because of their actions that day posted incriminating evidence on their personally-identifiable social media.

In a strange way, they were living up to the ideal of speaking out (and acting out) for what they believed without hiding behind anonymity. Clearly that lack of anonymity didn't deter them from questioning authority.

In general, I think younger generations have come to accept the lack of privacy better than older ones. They seem to be more tolerant of stupid things someone said on social media in the past. Maybe it's a good thing.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

...Putting aside fears of Orwellian state abuse, I'm coming to the conclusion that we're actually approaching the end of internet anonymity anyway.

I worry less about Orwellian state abuse and more about Huxleyian corporate misuse of my personal data.

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Personally, I try (and maybe do not always succeed) to maintain a certain level of decency and respect posting here. Even without a direct connection to my IRL identity, I value any reputation I may build here, and think twice before saying anything I know may damage it.

I don't doubt you do, but use of masks, and online anonymity, has been well studied in human behavioural research. The conclusions are quite clear; people tend to behave worse when they believe their identities are hidden. This is a macro trend. Individuals can land anywhere on the graph, so you may be an outlier.

I deeply appreciate the need for privacy and private spaces. This is a core danger the actions of so-called social media platforms threaten. It's not about selling us more crap we don't need (although that is a problem). It's how these platforms understand and manipulate us to serve their own ends.

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Finally, events of January 6th have shown that many people don't really care much about their anonymity anyway. Without going beyond the superficial headlines, it appears to me that many of those arrested because of their actions that day posted incriminating evidence on their personally-identifiable social media.

Most criminals don't expect to get caught. This is why harsher sentences rarely have the desired effect. For whatever reason, these people didn't expect to be charged for their actions. It seems most thought their actions just (or justified).

Originally Posted by CaptTom

In general, I think younger generations have come to accept the lack of privacy better than older ones. They seem to be more tolerant of stupid things someone said on social media in the past. Maybe it's a good thing.

Really? I see less tolerance, most especially from younger generations. If anything, the demands for past purity seems to be growing amongst the younger generations. But you're definitely right, the "kids today" don't seem to value privacy the way us old farts do. Or rather, they don't understand that privacy and freedom are two sides of the same coin.

My view is this shift in something being purposely driven by monster social media companies like Facebook. In fact, I think Mark Zuckerberg has said pretty much this. Privacy is a barrier to his company's financial success.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I worry less about Orwellian state abuse and more about Huxleyian corporate misuse of my personal data.

As I'm sure you know, this has less to do with misinformation per se, and more to do with what companies have on us and how they use it

I think the EU is on the right track for regulations and responsibilities around the management of personal data.

I see less tolerance, most especially from younger generations. If anything, the demands for past purity seems to be growing amongst the younger generations.

Can you expand a bit on that? I've seen examples of what some call "cancel culture" but I think it's less prevalent now than a few years back. I also think the kids are better than us at calling a spade a spade, and skewering some of the rationalizations we of the older generation have numbed ourselves with. (We were young once too... remember that, and how we felt about things?)

[s/v Jedi]

It’s only when watching YouTube videos of young couples sailing, building homesteads etc. that I know there’s still hope for the new generations because when you see their comments on news events it’s really sad.

About anonymity on the Internet: when I sold my ISP company in 2002, the government just started forcing us to log everything from every customer. Glad I was out.

This explains why people go “cold” for the important stuff: discuss issues during face to face meetings, encrypt or how about the use of cold wallets for cryptocurrency; all done to ensure anonymity and security (deny government as well as hackers access to your data/info/currency etc)

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I believe I understand your concern, with regards to the act mentioned in the OP, or with similar legislation.

I don't think anything near that restrictive as you are suggesting would actually come to pass. From a legal point of view, it would be nonsense to ask companies to enforce a standard that's yet to be set. In other words, if government is too chicken to draw the lines, how can any company possibly enforce them?

Many US interests - internet companies, ACLU, 1st Amendment absolutists, political parties, unions - would join together to oppose something that restrictive.

Many news sites have already eliminated comment sections as they don't want to be responsible for content posted.

Of course, if it's technically the host site setting the rules for what can be posted and the host site deleting "offensive" posts based on secret algorithms, there is no court case for all these interests to get involved with.

Interestingly just before the election, Yahoo shut down their comments section with the following post appearing in it's place:

"Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting."

- How exactly do you engage and connect when comments are not allowed?
- They have recently brought comments back but only on certain articles...but there appears to be a pattern of disallowing comments on articles that clearly support Yahoo's political stance. They still were an excellent source to fact check articles. Sure there were wild and crazy comments on both sides but those are usually pretty easy to see for what they are. But there would often be links to additional information that changed the view point the article was asserting.
- The new commenting system also appears to have a secret algorithm to screen out comments. I've had a few really innocuous comments that come back (within a couple seconds) as denied due to the site rules...I go to the site rules and can find nothing in conflict with the rules.

Of course as a private company, that's within their rights but I could see more and more sites take a similar approach if this type of legislation is passed. As there isn't the direct link to the govt shutting down free speech, not much can be done about it thru the legal system.

Of course, dedicated social media platforms like facebook can't shut down their comments but it's easy to send users to facebook jail to shut down dissenting view points or simply automatically delete what are deemed "offensive" comments in the name of complying with the legislation. As long as they keep the process opaque it's really hard to combat it.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Funny, but I've made the same suggestion for CF multiple times. It's actually been well studied, and it's clear that anonymity leads to behaviours that are less constrained and, as you say, nasty. If people here had to stand behind what they write, I suspect words would be chosen with greater care.

(And yes... I know... it's easy to fake identities. There are answers, but I don't mean to sidetrack this discussion).

Personally, I think any legislated change should be aimed at shifting the economic incentives for these companies. They ramp up the vitriol because that's what drives views and clicks. They feed people self-affirming "news" because that keeps people engaged. The truthfulness of the content is irrelevant. As long as it keeps peoples' attention, that's all that matters.

So how do we shift the economics to reward truth? Outside penalizing falsehoods what can one do to change the economics of social media platforms?

"Less constrained" is a double edged sword. Yes, it can result in anonymous people saying nasty things but it also frees people from having to hide their views. How many individuals with "gender" challenges living in a conservative community just kept their mouths shut because they didn't want to deal with the fallout from openly espousing their views...then they feel isolated because they don't have anywhere to discuss the issue. Likewise, the conservative community never hears of any of this in their own community, so assumes it's just weird people in California, so they stay entrenched in their view.

I would strongly support penalties for printing falsehoods...of course we already have that in most free countries. The problem is it's pretty rare for media outlets to print outright lies. They have long since learned to print implication, innuendo and use adjectives and trigger words. They will often quote individuals (many times anonymous individuals) to create a degree of separation that they didn't say something. All this results in technically not lying but having the same effect. (look at the recent thread on the manatee that had a word CARVED into it's back when it was really someone rubbed or brushed the algae off its back. If you tried to sue the news outlet, it's a vague enough term that you would never win plus they used a quote from a 3rd party who could then claim in a lawsuit that it was a misunderstanding and taken out of context...the end result being no one would ever take the news outlet to task over it.)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Many news sites have already eliminated comment sections as they don't want to be responsible for content posted.
...
Interestingly just before the election, Yahoo shut down their comments section with the following post appearing in it's place:

"Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting."

- How exactly do you engage and connect when comments are not allowed?

When it comes to online (and usually anonymous) comments... people are just awful, period. Sites that permit commenting have to contend with legions of self-appointed (or recruited) trolls in wars of comment attrition. It's usually very hard to find any wheat in all that chaff. It's like owning a pub where every minute you're open, there's a brawl, and so most of the people who visit are only there for that. The assertions that those sites prune the comments in order to push some political agenda is bunk, and ignores the content of the comments most often pruned. Awful is awful; no-one should be required to carry it.

Rational debate requires the participants to express their ideas intelligently, and with some reasonable effort put into it. I don't think some partisan's every grunt needs or deserves a hearing. If someone's viewpoint cannot be expressed without falsehoods, prejudice, and divisiveness... is it really a viewpoint that deserves to be heard?

I don't really blame many sites for not wanting to host troll battlegrounds any more. Sites like CF are a rarity, in terms of tone, though we all saw the flocks of trolls who descended here this spring and summer, like starlings, as their COVID boredom increased. Fortunately they've moved on.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

When it comes to online (and usually anonymous) comments... people are just awful, period. Sites that permit commenting have to contend with legions of self-appointed (or recruited) trolls in wars of comment attrition. It's usually very hard to find any wheat in all that chaff. It's like owning a pub where every minute you're open, there's a brawl, and so most of the people who visit are only there for that. The assertions that those sites prune the comments in order to push some political agenda is bunk, and ignores the content of the comments most often pruned. Awful is awful; no-one should be required to carry it.

Rational debate requires the participants to express their ideas intelligently, and with some reasonable effort put into it. I don't think some partisan's every grunt needs or deserves a hearing. If someone's viewpoint cannot be expressed without falsehoods, prejudice, and divisiveness... is it really a viewpoint that deserves to be heard?

I don't really blame many sites for not wanting to host troll battlegrounds any more. Sites like CF are a rarity, in terms of tone, though we all saw the flocks of trolls who descended here this spring and summer, like starlings, as their COVID boredom increased. Fortunately they've moved on.

And if you go to countries where there is censorship, they will happily support your viewpoint.

Free speech isn't about freedom to say what you agree with and label the rest trolls. You can't have a rational debate if you muzzle those you disagree with. I can usually tell within the first few seconds if a comment is just off the wall. It's not hard to sort the wheat from chafe.

Divisive issues are exactly the ones that need open discussion and debate. A lot of cancel culture uses this exact approach. Once someone or something is called up for cancel, no positive aspect can ever be considered per the cancel culture aficionados. If we aren't allowed to talk about divisive issues, you can't do anything with them. In the 1800's slavery was a divisive issue...would you prefer that everyone had just stayed silent for fear of upsetting the status quo?

The complication with these types of laws is they are work arounds for violating free speech. As mentioned, these sites love clicks and wild and wooly crazy debates create clicks. They are only shutting them down out of fear the govt will come after them for something a 3rd party stated.

As far as do they prune comments based on agenda, it's exactly based on the comments most often pruned.

No one is saying these sites should be forced to carry a comment section. The issue here is the govt is actively discouraging open discourse via threats to the sites.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As I'm sure you know, this has less to do with misinformation per se, and more to do with what companies have on us and how they use it

I think the EU is on the right track for regulations and responsibilities around the management of personal data.

Yes, I realize this is getting off track. I made a meagre attempt to avoid the drift, but I know... .

I've heard this about the EU, but I only have scant knowledge of what they're actually doing, so won't dare to comment. I note that Facebook and Google are pissed enough at Australia's recent actions that they are threatening to take their balls and go home. Again, I don't know the details, but anything that annoys them that much is probably something I'd appreciate .

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Can you expand a bit on that? I've seen examples of what some call "cancel culture" but I think it's less prevalent now than a few years back.

Not my impression... Yes, cancel culture is one symptom, but I see it everywhere, from the pervasive identity politics to the 'call-out culture' that seems to dominate discourse. I find work by people like Jonathan Haidt illuminating (based on his, and other psychological research).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Free speech isn't about freedom to say what you agree with and label the rest trolls. You can't have a rational debate if you muzzle those you disagree with.

I know the difference. My pattern is to engage and challenge those I disagree with, if I think they have half a brain. I tend to catch some heat for that.

I won't bore everyone again with my favourite Harlan Ellison quote about opinions.

Divisive issues are exactly the ones that need open discussion and debate. A lot of cancel culture uses this exact approach. Once someone or something is called up for cancel, no positive aspect can ever be considered per the cancel culture aficionados. If we aren't allowed to talk about divisive issues, you can't do anything with them. In the 1800's slavery was a divisive issue...would you prefer that everyone had just stayed silent for fear of upsetting the status quo?

Again, most people can tell the difference between a comment made by someone with a grasp of their material and an apparent desire to discuss... and a troll.

In your very tortured slavery example, which of the following comments would/should get pruned?:

1. All men should be free!
2. N_ - lover! They're all too lazy and dumb to take care of themselves.

... was that very hard?

As mentioned, these sites love clicks and wild and wooly crazy debates create clicks.

That's not true, when it comes to the comment sections of actual news sites. Many have said as much. Most of them hate "wild and wooly" trollfests; they're a massive effort to moderate, and they detract from the gravity of the article.

But hey, that's a good benchmark for the veracity of a news site: if it permits or even stokes a wild-west comment section, or an echo-chamber... they're probably more interested in clicks than facts. That whole misinformation thing, again...

As far as do they prune comments based on agenda, it's exactly based on the comments most often pruned.

If there was a ready database of pruned comments, we could all judge them and decide whether they were pruned for their political slant... or for just being awful (trolling, false, inflammatory, libellous, repetitious, etc) comments. Place your bets.